DCPS students shafted again - sign petition to keep Jelleff field public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Purchase? No. Block the public out completely? Again, no. They rented the fields for 10 hours a week, or so.

It's your position that all public schools (and I assume this includes charters?) have first crack at all DPR space? And after that, "open" rec leagues?

OK, I guess. those rec leagues have to pay to rent the space. Should DCPS?

Sure. The DC government can pay the DC government for use of the DC government’s field. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for DCPS, though.

It isn't all just one pot of money. I don't know, of course, but I'd bet that DCPS would strongly object to the notion that they have to pay market-rate rent to DPR for Jelleff.

This absurdity has only been introduced because DC decided to create a market by renting Jelleff field out in the first place. What we DC taxpayers are saying is that PUBLIC fields are NOT part of the private marketplace. They should be allocated for the public good - which in this case, is quite obviously giving Hardy the priority.

Oh, so you don't think DPR facilities should be rented out *at all.* Again, what about Stoddert soccer - one of the largest youth rec leagues in the country? It is not affiliated with DCPS, and includes non-DC residents. DPR shouldn't rent to them, either?

What about a church with Maryland parishioners that wants to rent a field for a picnic - DPR shouldn't rent space to them either?

Surely you can see how unworkable this is . . .

Surely you can see the difference between a one-time permit for a church picnic, and a $$$ private school monopolizing a field during prime after school hours for 10 years?

I don't have any issue with DPR (and DCPS) giving access to facilities - I just think that in cases where an adjacent DCPS school has limited outdoor space, the DCPS should have priority. That's pretty self-explanatory to most people.

Once again - what about Stoddert? That league consumes for more DPR space than this arrangement every day.

Talk to me when Stoddert gets a 10-year exclusive after-school lease on a field proximate to a DCPS school with no field of its own. I'd have the same issue (although slightly less so, because I'm assuming most Stoddert players are at lease DC residents.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

PP here. Number of DC residents: 700,000 Number of DCPS students: 48,000

DPR and the rec center is concerned with a lot more of the DC public than just students.

But, but, but . . . the kids!

They have nowhere else to play soccer!

Wait . . . that's not true, is it?

It's helpful to remember that the complaint here isn't that Hardy kids can't play soccer at all, it's that this field is more convenient than the one they currently use. Poor little darlings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

PP here. Number of DC residents: 700,000 Number of DCPS students: 48,000

DPR and the rec center is concerned with a lot more of the DC public than just students.

Clearly, DPR is concerned with giving a sweetheart deal to a $$ private school full of non-DC resident students. Sounds like a really great use of scarce DC resources.

So your complaint is that the market rate for renting out DPR space is too low? What do you think it should be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

And I fail to see why a school thinks it should have rights just because they have money.

It's an established DPR program - renting out space for the use of private entities. It isn't like there is some sort of special treatment here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

PP here. Number of DC residents: 700,000 Number of DCPS students: 48,000

DPR and the rec center is concerned with a lot more of the DC public than just students.

But, but, but . . . the kids!

They have nowhere else to play soccer!

Wait . . . that's not true, is it?

It's helpful to remember that the complaint here isn't that Hardy kids can't play soccer at all, it's that this field is more convenient than the one they currently use. Poor little darlings.

So have Maret rent a field farther away. Or would that be too difficult for the poor darlings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

PP here. Number of DC residents: 700,000 Number of DCPS students: 48,000

DPR and the rec center is concerned with a lot more of the DC public than just students.

Clearly, DPR is concerned with giving a sweetheart deal to a $$ private school full of non-DC resident students. Sounds like a really great use of scarce DC resources.

So your complaint is that the market rate for renting out DPR space is too low? What do you think it should be?

Once again, I think that DCPS schools should have priority. I do not think Maret should be able to monopolize DC space, period. 1-2 days a week, fine. ALL day after school and most weekends - not fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

PP here. Number of DC residents: 700,000 Number of DCPS students: 48,000

DPR and the rec center is concerned with a lot more of the DC public than just students.

But, but, but . . . the kids!

They have nowhere else to play soccer!

Wait . . . that's not true, is it?

It's helpful to remember that the complaint here isn't that Hardy kids can't play soccer at all, it's that this field is more convenient than the one they currently use. Poor little darlings.

Maret parent, you're not really helping yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So only Maret students who are also DC residents should get to use the fields?

Anyone can use the fields, when organizations haven't made arrangements for their use. This is common. My daughter's Stoddert soccer team has games at Jelleff; you can't use the field when they're playing, either. The issue here is that many PPs believe that DCPS should have first call on the DPR fields, and should be able to force DPR to forgo lucrative arrangements that help everyone in DC (without offering similar compensation), because DCPS has failed in its responsibility to provide adequate facilities for its students.

Also, Maret is paying for the upkeep and improvement of the field. What many of you are saying is that DPR (not DCPS) has to pay for that upkeep and improvement? DCPS pays for DCPS fields; the arrangement many of you are suggesting would shift that responsibility to DPR.

Your argument is that DPR is responsible to all DC residents, not just DCPS students. So the non-DC residents at Maret should not have the same access as the DC residents at Maret.

That's silly. Maret is a DC entity. It has rented the fields. That's enough.

Stoddert has teams from Maryland - by this logic, and I'm being generous using that term, those teams shouldn't be permitted to practice or play on DPR (or DCPS) facilities.

No, Maret is a private school that has been allowed to purchase public facilities and block the public out of them, apparently completely. That's unacceptable in a city with scarce public space. Green space should go #1 to the public schools and open recreation leagues.

Purchase? No. Block the public out completely? Again, no. They rented the fields for 10 hours a week, or so.

It's your position that all public schools (and I assume this includes charters?) have first crack at all DPR space? And after that, "open" rec leagues?

OK, I guess. those rec leagues have to pay to rent the space. Should DCPS?

Sure. The DC government can pay the DC government for use of the DC government’s field. Works for me.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work for DCPS, though.

It isn't all just one pot of money. I don't know, of course, but I'd bet that DCPS would strongly object to the notion that they have to pay market-rate rent to DPR for Jelleff.

DPR should prioritize the use of its facilities by DC taxpayers. Many Maret families do not pay DC taxes. Those students should not have the use of DPR resources before DC taxpayers.

How very Trump of you. Why should someones taxpayers status disqualify them from public resources?

Huh? Of course that matters. If I take my family to a public pool in Md, we pay a fee. Local public assets are for local residents primarily.

All people/entities renting space from DPR, including Maret, pay a fee. And Maret is a business in DC, unlike you using a public pool in MD.

Maret is not a business; it’s a non- profit and does not pay taxes. Keep trying!

Paying taxes has nothing to do with it. The point is that it is in DC, and is the party signing the contract with DPR. That some kids don't live in DC doesn't matter in the slightest.

Of course it does. DPR charges all out of state residents fees to use the pools for example. YOu're doing some extraordinary mental gymnastics to justify this.

DPR charges every entity to rent DPR space. Charity, non-profit, school, soccer league, etc.

None of you have answered the question about Stoddert yet.

Look, I get that it's frustrating. But there are a couple of inescapable facts here:

- DPR and DCPS facilities are not interchangeable.

Er, they are owned by the same (public!) entity.

- DPR allows rentals such as this, to all sorts of organizations.

No, DPR does not allow 10 year permits to “all sorts of organizations.” This is not a rental; it is a long-term lease.

- DCPS has not provided sufficient facilities that will satisfy Hardy parents.

Yes.

- DPR is not responsible for providing extra-curricular space for DCPS students.

The DC government is responsible for it. Bowser and the Council can make the agencies to solve this.

And while these aren't "facts," not everything in DC is subsidiary to DCPS, and the people who head DPR are more concerned with their mission than DCPS's mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

And I fail to see why a school thinks it should have rights just because they have money.

It's an established DPR program - renting out space for the use of private entities. It isn't like there is some sort of special treatment here.

Is there any other private school allowed to rent out an entire DPR field like this for a below-market rate, when a DCPS needs it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

And I fail to see why a school thinks it should have rights just because they have money.

I really don't understand the beef with Maret here. The school sought to extend an arrangement that had been in place for 10 years; it's using a program that is widely used by other organizations in the city, and DPR agreed to it. If you must, complain about DPR (though I think that's misplaced) or DCPS. But the complaints about Maret sound a lot like people who just don't like private schools in general, or this one in particular. And no, I'm not a Maret parent - my kids go to a DCPCS. (But, do charter schools get first crack at DPR facilities as well, under your world view?)

And that’s why I said complaining to Maret won’t do any good. They don’t care.

And yes, a DC public school - charters are public schools, are they not? - should get first crack at public rec spaces, especially those closest to their location.

Are you saying private school student should have priority over public school students to the exclusion of those public school students for ten years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

YES EXACTLY. This whole thread is so stupid. The logic of this and the moral certitude is so clear to everyone except a few Maret boosters. I am CERTAIN that if this makes the city papers the whole city, minus a few of you, will be up in arms about it. Oh, except if it's the Washington Times maybe. Let's stop arguing with one or two idiots and @ all the media, please.

[Anonymous]

NP. I have no problem with Maret renting the space but a 10 year lease is obsurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have no problem with Maret renting the space but a 10 year lease is obsurd.

exactly. the nature of living in a city is that it's crowded and we share space with others, and nobody gets exactly what they might get way out in the burbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have no problem with Maret renting the space but a 10 year lease is obsurd.

That is a little odd, but I think it's a function of the new field, rather than a straight seasonal rental. I don't think anyone would pay to put in a new turf field without some assurances that they'd get a long-term benefit, rather than just one year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so doing the right thing doesn't factor in. got it.

What is the right thing? The field doesn't belong to the school, it's a public field. The school didn't offer to lease it the way Maret has. And the school has access to a field, just not that one.

Do you think it’s right for middle school students to have long daily commutes just to participate on their school sports team?

Do you think it’s right for exclusive use of public facilities be auctioned off to the highest (or most connected) bidder? Is the purpose of having public facilities just to generate rental income? Funny, but that sounds like a business more appropriate for the private sector.

That's precisely what you are suggesting - that exclusive use of the DPR facilities be auctioned off to the most connected (DCPS).

Wow. Sounds like some Maret parents got wind of this thread and are making crazy arguments to support their position. I suddenly have a lot less respect for this school's admin and parents.

I'm not a Maret parent. I'm just a person who doesn't understand why a school thinks it should have rights to a rec center, purely because of proximity.

Let's say it again one time louder for the people in the back: PUBLIC DC LANDS SHOULD GO TO PUBLIC DC PURPOSES FIRST.

YES EXACTLY. This whole thread is so stupid. The logic of this and the moral certitude is so clear to everyone except a few Maret boosters. I am CERTAIN that if this makes the city papers the whole city, minus a few of you, will be up in arms about it. Oh, except if it's the Washington Times maybe. Let's stop arguing with one or two idiots and @ all the media, please.

It's incredibly intellectually lazy to believe that the only way someone could disagree with your position is if they have a personal interest in the issue. I'm a charter school parent, and couldn't dream of affording Maret. And I think the Hardy parents who are so worked up about this are off base; and the people yelling about "it's all DC, one big pot of money" are unaware of how governments and bureaucracies work.